Author Topic: Science vs religion  (Read 2599 times)

Offline SGOS

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2020, 05:10:57 PM »
Even now, in a completely detached movement, Trumpers will not even consider talk of anything that counters their imbedded, self serving, ego protecting beliefs that massive fraud was committed.
I was just thinking the other day about the nature of Trumpers being almost identical to religionists in he way they fail at processing information.  The similarity is uncanny and dangerously scary.

Offline Baruch

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2020, 05:11:38 PM »
Science is to know, religion is to believe. That's that simple.

Some things have to be seen to be believed (empirical evidence) other things have to be believed to be seen (the development of a loving relationship).  This is why perfunctory Christmas gifts are false, if you despise the person you are gifting to.

Back in the day, "scientia" meant knowledge in Latin (Logos in Greek aka Jesus in the Gospel of John).  That is how the Catholic Church still uses the word.  One can know the Church's official view of a particular saint or miracle .. that is knowledge in the old sense.  Since Galileo mostly, and this is where Galileo ran afoul of the Roman Inquisition .. claimed to have knowledge in the old sense concerning the Church that was outside of the official view.  In their terms, this was wrong.  He wasn't being an atheist, he was a better Catholic than the Pope!

But as a transition figure (he was a good Catholic), he was also using "scientia" in a Aristotle-corrected manner as for example the gravity experiment.  Galileo said that the idea that the Moon causes the tides is lunacy ;-)  He put, in his studies, the evidence of the senses is higher than the dogma of the Church regarding Aristotle as being the be-all-and-end-all of knowledge in the old sense.  Which is ironic, because earlier the Church had accepted neo-Platonic dogma and fought the introduction of Aristotle into the universities.

Copernicus revived the Sun-centric theory of Aristarchus, but in fact it had more epicycles than the Earth-centric theory of Ptolemy, it wasn't simpler.  Galileo agreed with Copernicus anyway, because it seemed to him to make more sense, because of the moons of Jupiter (evidence of the senses thanks to the telescope he invented).  Kepler's results weren't fully accepted until Newton.  Proof of the rotation of the spherical Earth (proven by the voyage of Magellan in 1522 and indirect evidence earlier) wasn't observed directly until the Foucault pendulum in 1851.

Newton came along later and showed indirectly, that gravity must exist on Earth and in the Heavens as the same thing, and that this validated the ellipses of Kepler.  But this required co-inventing Calculus and developing classical mechanics.  Kepler accepted the elliptical orbits for the same reason as Galileo accepted the gravity experiment ... observation trumped dogma regarding circles as being heavenly perfect.  This wasn't apparent in earlier inaccurate data.

Communist dogmatic "science" (Lysenko in biology) aka dialectical materialism, was just as wrong as the Catholic Church, because it dismissed empirical evidence to the contrary.  The Soviet Union propagandized abiogenic petroleum, expecting to pump oil on the Moon ;-)  The notion that scientists are naturally Leftist ... is intelligencia virtue signaling ;-)  Borrowing the authority of doctors of medicine with Covid but ignoring their political and commercial involvements is the same thing. 

"Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science." - Karl Marx.  He was no scientist or mathematician or logician.  His economics is based on unlimited free energy and unlimited natural resources on the one hand, and class warfare on the other.  With steam engine automation there would be no reason for anyone to work, everything would be free (see World Economic Forum today).  The first part is what all utopian sci fi is based on.  Class warfare is real though.  And naturally Leftists want to claim all educated people are part of their tribe (except for Pol Pot who really understood the intelligencia as useful idiots).
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 05:21:34 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Baruch

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2020, 05:13:08 PM »
I was just thinking the other day about the nature of Trumpers being almost identical to religionists in he way they fail at processing information.  The similarity is uncanny and dangerously scary.

Exactly, logic, mathematics and science are all on the side of inevitable communist victory ;-)

@GSOgymrat .. Plank, Einstein and Schroedinger were early inventors of Quantum Mechanics.  And later in life rejected it as being not really scientific.

Hope y'all enjoy your 15 minutes hate of the Church, and love of dialectical materialist Big Brother.  A dead Jew is your Lord and Savior after all ;-))
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 05:22:33 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline aitm

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2020, 05:58:20 PM »
Hope y'all enjoy your 15 minutes hate of the Church,
15? Hummmph. You don’t know us well you wascally wabbit.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2020, 06:40:46 PM »


So, what is the message you are sending me??
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2020, 07:51:02 PM »
15? Hummmph. You don’t know us well you wascally wabbit.

If you hate yourself hating yourself do you disappear into a puff of contradiction?

People are complicated, not stereotypes.  Scientists aren't all card carrying Marxists .. in fact I would question Marxist scientists the same way I would question Nazi scientists.  There were German scientists who rejected Einstein's theories merely because he was Jewish.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 07:53:27 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2020, 08:47:09 PM »
The Templeton prize ( I think it's called) is given to people who bridge science and religion. I think it's garbage.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Offline aitm

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2020, 09:09:25 PM »
?

People are complicated, not stereotypes. 
And then you go off about scientists, who are not the “vast majority” I speak off. Stupid once was a considered a psychological term I believe derived to imply the refusal of reason or knowledge willingly. So yes, the vast majority of religionists have been, are, and will remain stupid.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2020, 09:10:21 PM »
So, what is the message you are sending me??

Examples of what you were referring to-- the claim that scientific discovery supports faith in God.

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2020, 09:33:14 PM »
Examples of what you were referring to-- the claim that scientific discovery supports faith in God.
:))  That's what I was doing??
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Hydra009

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2020, 09:57:22 PM »


Must we assume that?

P1) atoms exist
P2) atoms are held together by - you guessed it - atomic forces
C) God?

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2020, 10:28:20 PM »
Planck knew nothing of the strong or weak nuclear forces, so he used an argument from ignorance.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Offline drunkenshoe

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2020, 01:10:49 AM »
Careful getting off your horse...😁

OK sober note. That's what it feels like when people say this is stupid that is stupid for everything they don't like. That's how your response sounds like, not mine. Are you projecting or was that the easiest answer to come to mind as a one liner? 
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Havelock Vetinari

Offline Baruch

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2020, 05:07:07 AM »
Planck knew nothing of the strong or weak nuclear forces, so he used an argument from ignorance.

Yes, nuclear forces prove there is no god ;-)  A British scientist claimed in 1945 that the atom bomb proved their is no G-d.

"Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk. God made the integers, all the rest is the work of man." - Leopold Kronecker ... Mathematics shows otherwise ;-)

Yes, anyone who doesn't have an iPhone is an ignorant savage!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2020, 05:10:44 AM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Baruch

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2020, 05:07:58 AM »
The Templeton prize ( I think it's called) is given to people who bridge science and religion. I think it's garbage.

Nobel Prize is garbage too.  Not so sure about the Fields Medal ... though the Leftists are trying to undermine math too.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.